If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Given his previous sh*thousery in the last match got no more than a wagging finger, does his contract stipulate that he can't be banned? That seemed at least a 3-gamer - especially given the ban Leese got when then w*nky player fell into his tackle.

But Connor used “foul and abusive” language whereas Brough just disagreed without swearing apparently.

Since when does that make a difference? It's not like he was using bad language to a woman or child. It's grown men we're talking about. It's just another case of RFL not applying the rules consistently. I don't know why I expected any different, no doubt we'll be on the end of some dubious decisions through the season.

Since when does that make a difference? It's not like he was using bad language to a woman or child. It's grown men we're talking about. It's just another case of RFL not applying the rules consistently. I don't know why I expected any different, no doubt we'll be on the end of some dubious decisions through the season.

Of course there’s a difference and it’s an issue of degree. If you question a penalty, for example, there’s a likelihood you’ll be marched back 10 metres; continue and it could be a sin-binning. If the expression of discontent involved swearing (or the likes of homophobic comments) the likelihood is that a ban will follow what might be an initial red rather than yellow card. You have clearly forgotten or ignored the “Respect” initiative that was introduced in recent years.

Of course there’s a difference and it’s an issue of degree. If you question a penalty, for example, there’s a likelihood you’ll be marched back 10 metres; continue and it could be a sin-binning. If the expression of discontent involved swearing (or the likes of homophobic comments) the likelihood is that a ban will follow what might be an initial red rather than yellow card. You have clearly forgotten or ignored the “Respect” initiative that was introduced in recent years.

I agree with your point but I do think repeated dissent like this should be punished. Brough clearly isnt very bright and a sin bin hasn't had the desired effect

I agree with your point but I do think repeated dissent like this should be punished. Brough clearly isnt very bright and a sin bin hasn't had the desired effect

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I think you’re right about repeated infringements. Rather than ban him for a game, however, I think it would be more of a punishment to fine him and keep using the sin-bin when he transgresses. That way, rather than being able to field a full side whenever Brough is banned, the club has to suffer each time by playing a man short for 10 minutes (and did we manage to score the winning try over the weekend at the death partly because Wakefield were too tired to close us down after having to cover for Brough’s absence earlier in the game?): and the player feels the impact in his wallet.

I think you’re right about repeated infringements. Rather than ban him for a game, however, I think it would be more of a punishment to fine him and keep using the sin-bin when he transgresses. That way, rather than being able to field a full side whenever Brough is banned, the club has to suffer each time by playing a man short for 10 minutes (and did we manage to score the winning try over the weekend at the death partly because Wakefield were too tired to close us down after having to cover for Brough’s absence earlier in the game?): and the player feels the impact in his wallet.

That's not a bad idea at all. Do you mean for the offence in particular that they've had looked at previously though or in general?

Dave Woods: the guy who makes Eddie Hemmings look like a decent commentator

That's not a bad idea at all. Do you mean for the offence in particular that they've had looked at previously though or in general?

I was really covering repeat infringements for issues that don’t in themselves warrant a ban, as in the case of dissent that doesn’t also include swearing at the ref/touchjudge. As I understand the system, if a player is a repeat offender for foul play, the Disciplinary Panel will levy a longer ban within the spectrum identified for each category of offence than applies for a first timer.

I was really covering repeat infringements for issues that don’t in themselves warrant a ban, as in the case of dissent that doesn’t also include swearing at the ref/touchjudge. As I understand the system, if a player is a repeat offender for foul play, the Disciplinary Panel will levy a longer ban within the spectrum identified for each category of offence than applies for a first timer.

Understood. Thanks

Dave Woods: the guy who makes Eddie Hemmings look like a decent commentator

Of course there’s a difference and it’s an issue of degree. If you question a penalty, for example, there’s a likelihood you’ll be marched back 10 metres; continue and it could be a sin-binning. If the expression of discontent involved swearing (or the likes of homophobic comments) the likelihood is that a ban will follow what might be an initial red rather than yellow card. You have clearly forgotten or ignored the “Respect” initiative that was introduced in recent years.

If it’s soft to take offence at “such a thing” why do you deem it inappropriate language to use to women and children? Are you a member of the RFL given such inconsistency?

Because I'm a grown man, I hear all kinds on a regular basis but I'm not overly sensitive. If someone used bad language in front of my little girl then they'd be told to watch it, Rugby player or not. My Mrs it would depend on what was said but again she's an adult and can decide for herself.

I think you're being pedantic for the sake of it to be honest. If you can't see the difference then I think you have issues.

Because I'm a grown man, I hear all kinds on a regular basis but I'm not overly sensitive. If someone used bad language in front of my little girl then they'd be told to watch it, Rugby player or not. My Mrs it would depend on what was said but again she's an adult and can decide for herself.

I think you're being pedantic for the sake of it to be honest. If you can't see the difference then I think you have issues.

What was being discussed here was the matter of swearing at a match official. In much the same way as it is not deemed acceptable to swear in court, or at a senior officer in the services (and in many other places of work), so treating referees respectfully is a requirement of rugby league and failure to do so should result in some form of disciplinary action. I accept that people swear, and that some circumstances seemingly justify it, but I nevertheless consider it to be a failure on that person’s behalf if they are unable to convey their message without resorting to foul and abusive language. That’s not to say that I haven’t fallen short in that respect in general life and in sport, indeed I once received a 16 match ban for telllng the referee what I thought of him.

What was being discussed here was the matter of swearing at a match official. In much the same way as it is not deemed acceptable to swear in court, or at a senior officer in the services (and in many other places of work), so treating referees respectfully is a requirement of rugby league and failure to do so should result in some form of disciplinary action. I accept that people swear, and that some circumstances seemingly justify it, but I nevertheless consider it to be a failure on that person’s behalf if they are unable to convey their message without resorting to foul and abusive language. That’s not to say that I haven’t fallen short in that respect in general life and in sport, indeed I once received a 16 match ban for telllng the referee what I thought of him.

Fair enough, I'm well aware of people it's not appropriate to use bad language in front of and Connor is a knob for doing so, especially with his reputation. What gets my back up though is Brough basically getting away with it because of his choice of words. That's either the authorities being pathetic or inconsistent because if Connor had said something so over the top then surely he'd of been sent off and a big song and dance made out of it ala Hardaker, if not, does it really matter?

RedVee.Net attempts to keep objectionable messages off this forum but it is impossible to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author and neither the owner of RedVee.Net nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message. RedVee.Net operates a good taste and lawful policy and members agree to abide by this. Members who ignore this policy will have their membership reviewed. RedVee.Net reserves the right to edit, close or delete any thread for any reason.